In my first year of college, I received an email from my best friend that he was about to attempt suicide. The battle to reconcile his sexual orientation with the expectations of his evangelical friends and family had become too much, and he only saw one way out.
I raced across campus, pounded on his dorm room door, and found him in time. I listened through his tears, walked with him to meet a crisis counselor, and stayed with him until I was sure he was safe. Years later, it was one of the great honors of my life to officiate the joyful marriage between him and his husband — a wedding that most of his family and several friends did not attend.
That’s why it may be surprising that I think the U.S. Supreme Court got it right in siding with a therapist who practices conversion therapy in an attempt to change someone’s sexual orientation.
Kaley Chiles, a licensed Colorado therapist, challenged her state’s 2019 ban on conversion therapy, which forbade any practice intended to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Chiles argued that, because she only offers talk therapy, the law unconstitutionally restricted her right to free speech. An 8-1 majority of the justices agreed and returned the case to a lower court to re-evaluate its decision with the highest standard of review.
LGBTQ and health advocacy groups are justified in their concerns. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson cited in her lone dissent, multiple rigorous studies have documented significant and lasting harm to LGBTQ communities due to conversion therapy practices. Not only is there little evidence of effectiveness, studies report increased rates of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts for diverse LGBTQ patients.
For those of us who love queer people, as I do, conversion therapy is dangerous and very much an issue of life and death. Nevertheless, I still believe the court made the right decision.
At a time of increasing incidents of federal abuse of power, all Americans need to support efforts to shore up our fundamental freedoms — especially the freedom of speech, even if it is speech we find deeply misguided. Because without those first freedoms, we cannot build a pluralist America.
Let’s be clear: we are witnessing unprecedented federal assaults on liberty. From the ICE actions in Minneapolis to the detainment of college students, from limiting rights of religious institutions to defunding public broadcasting — and much, much more — the second Trump administration has advanced a dangerous set of attacks on our Constitution.
For those of us concerned by this aggressive and increasingly lawless trajectory, research suggests that a strengthened commitment to Constitutional principles — which most Americans still agree on — is foundational to combating these threats.
Working across ideological boundaries is an especially vital tactic, which means growing relationships and trust beyond our own immediate communities. Our principled commitment to liberty is tested when we extend those freedoms not only to those we agree with, but also to those with whom we deeply disagree. As the late British writer Evelyn Beatrice Hall reportedly wrote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Constitutional liberties are designed to protect everyone, and ensuring the strength of those freedoms — even for those with whom we disagree — is ultimately about protecting ourselves. As Justice Elena Kagan noted in oral arguments last October, a failure to protect the speech rights of conversion therapists could open the opportunity for bans on gender-affirming therapy, as well.
We cannot allow our First Amendment freedoms to become the latest victim of polarization. Some have pointed out that the Supreme Court has demonstrated hypocrisy on these issues, elevating the concerns of religious believers over the rights of LGBTQ communities. I share this concern, and also worry that a tit-for-tat limitation of rights will ultimately lead to diminished freedom for all. Polarization can push us all into an ever-escalating game of zero-sum choices, implying that the only way to “win” matters of public debate is to limit the rights of people with whom we disagree.
Yet as Washington University scholar John Inazu argues in “Confident Pluralism,” a strong, pluralistic democracy relies on vibrant and expansive First Amendment freedoms, which provide the legal infrastructure to create civic space where all can co-exist and thrive. In other words, preserving and upholding expansive commitments to First Amendment freedoms is our best bulwark against authoritarianism and an essential foundation for pluralism to thrive.
Even when we disagree most fundamentally, expansive civil liberties are the best long-term pathway to hold our government accountable to ensuring that all Americans — including both LGBTQ communities and religious conservatives — have equal access to the dignity and freedom which the Constitution demands.
Join our network!
Get media, funding opportunities, events, and resources from Interfaith America in your inbox.
